Can Palestinian's and Israeli's ever be friends?

[Rehmani]

For your knowledge Iran was jewish first home 2000 years ago.

And there's approximately 29,000 of them living there now without any problems.

Down from 1.5 million just a few years ago when the ayotallas took over Iran and forced them to leave. Now they live in abject fear of early morning raids, beatings, rapes and recriminations. Those managing to escape have told all about their treatment at the hands of the Iranians, but you don't believe them do you as you are so immersed in your Nazi Jew hatred and anti Semitism that it rules your every second of your life

One Phoenall and Two jews are innocent in this world, is it correct Phoenall?

 

[Rehmani]

But

For your knowledge Iran was jewish first home 2000 years ago.

And there's approximately 29,000 of them living there now without any problems.

Down from 1.5 million just a few years ago when the ayotallas took over Iran and forced them to leave. Now they live in abject fear of early morning raids, beatings, rapes and recriminations. Those managing to escape have told all about their treatment at the hands of the Iranians, but you don't believe them do you as you are so immersed in your Nazi Jew hatred and anti Semitism that it rules your every second of your life

The Islamic Revolution in 1979, at a time when the Jewish population was less than 100,000, Jews were not forced to leave..... Quite the contrary....

Ayatollah Khomeini declared that "We recognize our Jews as separate from those godless, bloodsucking Zionists." and issued a fatwa decreeing that the Jews were to be protected.

But you won't believe that! Too immersed in your zionist, racist brainwashing...

But jews are supporting Zionists in Israel and occupation is continue over Land of Palestine and killing innocent empty hand people and jews are continuously grabbing Palestinian land and forcing them in small camps, Humanity you are behaving hypocritically.

 

[Humanity]

Humanity you are behaving hypocritically

How so?

 

[Rehmani]

Humanity you are behaving hypocritically

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

 

[Humanity]

Humanity you are behaving hypocritically

How so?

As You are defending trouble maker israel, ignoring all that killing by jews.

I do not defend the government of Israel nor their policies...

I do not defend the zionists who, in my opinion, are no better than Hamas extremists...

I do defend the right of Jews to have a homeland...

You understand the differences between Israel, zionism and Jews?

 

[Daniyel]

Palestinians Attempt To Lynch Five American Tourists In Hebron

I Just hope you could see the lesson.

What lesson? They were Jewish yeshiva students that took a wrong turn....oh, you mean this lesson,

"The five Americans were rescued by a local Arab resident who sheltered them in his home. Two of the students were lightly to moderately wounded in the attack."

Got It! Thanks.

Exactly. By mindlessly encouraging hate and sparking violence - we achieve nothing but death and sorrow.
All acts from the outside world is always followed by hidden agendas and interests that only serve the ones initiating them.
Solution is real only with clear and calm thinking, regardless of hatred or distrust, but it's the last straw of backing one side for these acts that turns people blind.

 

[Billo_Really]

Given as far as I am aware, care to show how the link is biased and partisan ?

Why? Seeing how you never do, think I'll just sit back and call you (and your sources) names. You get what you give.

But I did do something you don't do, I actually went to your links and read them in their entirety. So if (and when) I decide to comment on them, I'll know what I'm talking about.

 

[Billo_Really]

Exactly. By mindlessly encouraging hate and sparking violence - we achieve nothing but death and sorrow.
All acts from the outside world is always followed by hidden agendas and interests that only serve the ones initiating them.
Solution is real only with clear and calm thinking, regardless of hatred or distrust, but it's the last straw of backing one side for these acts that turns people blind.

You need to end the occupation and blockade and get your fucking ass off land that isn't yours. The occupation is the central cause of all the violence. That is YOUR fault! As long as you maintain this brutal occupation, you need to stop blaming others for the violence. Once you end the occupation, you can finally say, "Hey, it's not me!"

 

[Billo_Really]

But jews are supporting Zionists in Israel...

Just right wing Jews. Left wing Jews are cool. But the Likud Party is no different than al Qaeda and ISIS. In fact, they're providing material support to them in Syria.

Israeli PM Netanfuckyou can go to hell! He's a fucking megalomaniac, who's giving Jews a bad reputation all over the world.

 

[Phoenall]

A 90% decline in numbers due to forced expulsion and mass murder

See above as the links are there for you, that is if you can read them

So, again you post random links that don't support your blathering!

Can you post a link that clearly states that 90,000 Jews have been "forced expulsion and mass murder"?

Read the links again, or are you having a problem doing so



According to the narrative of the Iranian regime and its apologists, Jews are free to leave Iran if they want to. Yet many Iranian Jews have risked their lives and/or were killed when trying to flee Iran. For example, helping Jews to emigrate to Israel is punishable by death. Iranians including Jews are forbidden from any contact with Israel. The regime in Iran doesn’t allow whole Jewish families to go to Israel.

HOGWASH and islaminazi propaganda because they know they are unable to defeat the Jews. They have tried and failed many times, and even the combined forces of 5 arab nations could not beat Jewish farmers fighting with farm tools and 19C guns.

HOGWASH and islaminazi propaganda because they know they are unable to defeat the Jews. They have tried and failed many times, and even the combined forces of 5 arab nations could not beat Jewish farmers fighting with farm tools and 19C guns.

How silly. Must be you are not Jewish.

Correct I am not Jewish but I support and defend their right to defend themselves from attacks and terrorism. Just as I support and defend the people of Syria's right to defend against attack and terrorism.

How silly again, jewish invade Palestine and you defending them. They are killing innocent empty handed people and you are defending them, correct yourself you are more faithful than a jewish.

When did the Jewish invade Jewish land then ? remember International law stated that the land was Jewish in 1923.

Soon international Law maker will intervene and change and I am sure you will accept the new Law instead.

No International Law Maker but the people, and if they say no then the law will not stand. And the law stands today even after islamonazi scum tried to get it changed and failed. The only way is to negotiate a lasting peace and mutual borders with Israel

 

[Phoenall]

Exactly. By mindlessly encouraging hate and sparking violence - we achieve nothing but death and sorrow.
All acts from the outside world is always followed by hidden agendas and interests that only serve the ones initiating them.
Solution is real only with clear and calm thinking, regardless of hatred or distrust, but it's the last straw of backing one side for these acts that turns people blind.

You need to end the occupation and blockade and get your fucking ass off land that isn't yours. The occupation is the central cause of all the violence. That is YOUR fault! As long as you maintain this brutal occupation, you need to stop blaming others for the violence. Once you end the occupation, you can finally say, "Hey, it's not me!"

The land is Jewish or don't you think that International law applies in Israel's favour.

Once the arab muslims stop being violent the occupation will end, as soon as they start being violent again they will face occupation and war again.

 

[Phoenall]

But jews are supporting Zionists in Israel...

Just right wing Jews. Left wing Jews are cool. But the Likud Party is no different than al Qaeda and ISIS. In fact, they're providing material support to them in Syria.

Israeli PM Netanfuckyou can go to hell! He's a fucking megalomaniac, who's giving Jews a bad reputation all over the world.

You mean the N.K. who have it as their end times that all non Jews will die a horrible death and only they will get to heaven

 

[Humanity]

A 90% decline in numbers due to forced expulsion and mass murder

See above as the links are there for you, that is if you can read them

So, again you post random links that don't support your blathering!

Can you post a link that clearly states that 90,000 Jews have been "forced expulsion and mass murder"?

Read the links again, or are you having a problem doing so



According to the narrative of the Iranian regime and its apologists, Jews are free to leave Iran if they want to. Yet many Iranian Jews have risked their lives and/or were killed when trying to flee Iran. For example, helping Jews to emigrate to Israel is punishable by death. Iranians including Jews are forbidden from any contact with Israel. The regime in Iran doesn’t allow whole Jewish families to go to Israel.

How silly. Must be you are not Jewish.

Correct I am not Jewish but I support and defend their right to defend themselves from attacks and terrorism. Just as I support and defend the people of Syria's right to defend against attack and terrorism.

How silly again, jewish invade Palestine and you defending them. They are killing innocent empty handed people and you are defending them, correct yourself you are more faithful than a jewish.

When did the Jewish invade Jewish land then ? remember International law stated that the land was Jewish in 1923.

Soon international Law maker will intervene and change and I am sure you will accept the new Law instead.

No International Law Maker but the people, and if they say no then the law will not stand. And the law stands today even after islamonazi scum tried to get it changed and failed. The only way is to negotiate a lasting peace and mutual borders with Israel

I have read your weak links...

There is NOTHING to support your claims of "forced expulsion and mass murder"...

Read them again? Look for something you are making up?

I don't think so.... Phoney by name phoney by nature!

 

[Humanity]

The land is Jewish or don't you think that International law applies in Israel's favour.

Let me ask you this Phoney...

Why is it that every country, excluding Israel, naturally, believes that the territory is illegally occupied by Israel?

 

[RoccoR]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Most people understand that, not until 1988, could the Palestinians be in a position to acquire territory.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Generally speaking, laws do not tell "what you can do" --- but rather --- "what you cannot do." I'm sure that Iwent over this before.

(COMMENT)

For several millennium --- the most common means was "discovery." However, no new land has been discovered in a century. Today --- there are five primary modes of acquisition of territorial sovereignty which are typically dubbed the ‘original’ or ‘traditional’ methods. Each mode of acquisition - is different:

NOTE: Recognizing the importance of the international regulation of territorial disputes, international law has established a range of mechanisms for peaceful settlement. Whether binding in law as such or not or involving third parties such as courts or international organizations or not, such mechanisms will be briefly reviewed in this lecture. ​

• Occupation: Occupation is the intentional acquisition by a state over a territory which at the time of claim not under the sovereignty of any state. There are two requirements:

(1) the territory subject of claim must not be under the sovereignty of any state (terra nullius); and
(2) the state must have effectively occupied the territory, that is, the state claiming the territory must have exercised immediate occupation (corpus occupandi) on the territory after it displayed its intention to occupy (animus occupandi).

Special Source Note: "g. With regard to acquisition of sovereignty by military occupation, in the case of the Ottoman Empire pre-1918 of the Red Sea islands, the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of proceedings, Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute, in the case of Eritrea versus Yemen, October 9, 1998, stated that “title had been secured by military occupation, which was lawful by reference to the international law of the day.” (See Page 7 )"

“maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights."
​

Attribution: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RULES FOR DECIDING SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES by J. Ashley Roach
​

• Accretion, is the attainment of sovereignty over new land due to slow movement of natural forces. A contemporary example is the movement of the Rio Grande River between the US and Mexico, in favor of the US.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. The transfer of territory is the transfer of sovereignty from the owner state to another state. And since cession is a bilateral transaction, the parties involved are states. Cession may also be in the form of exchange of territory or in the form gift or donation or devise.

• Conquest: is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community. However, it is actually still in use today. A classic example is the Crimean Territory. There was first the case of Russian Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire (1783); and then (most recently) the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014).

• Prescription: means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. There are four requirements of prescription:

(1) the possession must be exercised in the form of actual exercise of sovereign authority;
(2) the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted;
(3) the possession must be public; and
(4) the possession must be for a long period of time.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post. Thank you for proving my point.

(COMMENT)

I believe that the Jewish State of Israel does not want to annex either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, for much the same reason that Jordan gave it up. Israel does not want the burden of sustaining a State in which the people are belligerent and the State itself is not self-sustaining and parasitic (being a nation of people existing on donor handouts). I don't believe that the West Bank or Gaza Strip should be --- in any way --- concerned that these territories will be absorbed by Israel. The "Occupation," if we can truly call it that, is purely a defensive posture.

As for the 1948/1948 establishment of Israel, the right of self-determination was used to support the Cession of a portion of the territory to which Mandate of Palestine formerly applied. In most cases no formalities need to be complied with to affect cession. However, in the case of the Jewish State of Palestine, the "original intent" was to conform to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN. This was intentionally interrupted through the use of force by multiple Arab States to take control of the territory (conquest) for their own agenda.

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily). However, in the case of Israel, it is assembled by several different means. Officially, the 1948/49 War of Independence is not completely over. Yes, there is an "Armistice" (marking the end of open hostilities) between several warring parties, only Treaties between Israel and two Arab States (Egypt & Jordan) have been concluded. These two treaties establish the International Boundaries. In 1988, while Israel "Occupied" the territory formerly controlled by Egypt & Jordan (West Bank or Gaza Strip), the Arab Palestinians Declared Independence in the territory now identified as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt), at the time defined as the "West Bank or Gaza Strip" or the "territory occupied since 1967." While Israel recognizes the international legitimacy of the UN Acknowledgement, the UN was unable to proved such security necessary to establish law and order or a defense deterrent against future Arab attacks on Israel. And the Arab Palestinians have not been able to actual "exercise of sovereign authority" over the oPt, such that further hostilities could be enforced and prevented.

Again, I don't think that Israel have any intention of annexing the oPt --- or extending their sovereign control over the oPt.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Most people understand that, not until 1988, could the Palestinians be in a position to acquire territory.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Generally speaking, laws do not tell "what you can do" --- but rather --- "what you cannot do." I'm sure that Iwent over this before.

(COMMENT)

For several millennium --- the most common means was "discovery." However, no new land has been discovered in a century. Today --- there are five primary modes of acquisition of territorial sovereignty which are typically dubbed the ‘original’ or ‘traditional’ methods. Each mode of acquisition - is different:

NOTE: Recognizing the importance of the international regulation of territorial disputes, international law has established a range of mechanisms for peaceful settlement. Whether binding in law as such or not or involving third parties such as courts or international organizations or not, such mechanisms will be briefly reviewed in this lecture. ​

• Occupation: Occupation is the intentional acquisition by a state over a territory which at the time of claim not under the sovereignty of any state. There are two requirements:

(1) the territory subject of claim must not be under the sovereignty of any state (terra nullius); and
(2) the state must have effectively occupied the territory, that is, the state claiming the territory must have exercised immediate occupation (corpus occupandi) on the territory after it displayed its intention to occupy (animus occupandi).

Special Source Note: "g. With regard to acquisition of sovereignty by military occupation, in the case of the Ottoman Empire pre-1918 of the Red Sea islands, the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of proceedings, Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute, in the case of Eritrea versus Yemen, October 9, 1998, stated that “title had been secured by military occupation, which was lawful by reference to the international law of the day.” (See Page 7 )"

“maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights."
​

Attribution: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RULES FOR DECIDING SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES by J. Ashley Roach​

• Accretion, is the attainment of sovereignty over new land due to slow movement of natural forces. A contemporary example is the movement of the Rio Grande River between the US and Mexico, in favor of the US.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. The transfer of territory is the transfer of sovereignty from the owner state to another state. And since cession is a bilateral transaction, the parties involved are states. Cession may also be in the form of exchange of territory or in the form gift or donation or devise.

• Conquest: is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community. However, it is actually still in use today. A classic example is the Crimean Territory. There was first the case of Russian Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire (1783); and then (most recently) the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014).

• Prescription: means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. There are four requirements of prescription:

(1) the possession must be exercised in the form of actual exercise of sovereign authority;
(2) the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted;
(3) the possession must be public; and
(4) the possession must be for a long period of time.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post. Thank you for proving my point.

(COMMENT)

I believe that the Jewish State of Israel does not want to annex either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, for much the same reason that Jordan gave it up. Israel does not want the burden of sustaining a State in which the people are belligerent and the State itself is not self-sustaining and parasitic (being a nation of people existing on donor handouts). I don't believe that the West Bank or Gaza Strip should be --- in any way --- concerned that these territories will be absorbed by Israel. The "Occupation," if we can truly call it that, is purely a defensive posture.

As for the 1948/1948 establishment of Israel, the right of self-determination was used to support the Cession of a portion of the territory to which Mandate of Palestine formerly applied. In most cases no formalities need to be complied with to affect cession. However, in the case of the Jewish State of Palestine, the "original intent" was to conform to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN. This was intentionally interrupted through the use of force by multiple Arab States to take control of the territory (conquest) for their own agenda.

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily). However, in the case of Israel, it is assembled by several different means. Officially, the 1948/49 War of Independence is not completely over. Yes, there is an "Armistice" (marking the end of open hostilities) between several warring parties, only Treaties between Israel and two Arab States (Egypt & Jordan) have been concluded. These two treaties establish the International Boundaries. In 1988, while Israel "Occupied" the territory formerly controlled by Egypt & Jordan (West Bank or Gaza Strip), the Arab Palestinians Declared Independence in the territory now identified as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt), at the time defined as the "West Bank or Gaza Strip" or the "territory occupied since 1967." While Israel recognizes the international legitimacy of the UN Acknowledgement, the UN was unable to proved such security necessary to establish law and order or a defense deterrent against future Arab attacks on Israel. And the Arab Palestinians have not been able to actual "exercise of sovereign authority" over the oPt, such that further hostilities could be enforced and prevented.

Again, I don't think that Israel have any intention of annexing the oPt --- or extending their sovereign control over the oPt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily). However, in the case of Israel, it is assembled by several different means.


What other means are there besides treaty. Acquisition of territory cannot be just say so or some back door approach.

I believe that conquest would be more applicable. Of course conquest was illegal when Israel drove out the Palestinians and set up shop.

 

[Phoenall]

A 90% decline in numbers due to forced expulsion and mass murder

See above as the links are there for you, that is if you can read them

So, again you post random links that don't support your blathering!

Can you post a link that clearly states that 90,000 Jews have been "forced expulsion and mass murder"?

Read the links again, or are you having a problem doing so



According to the narrative of the Iranian regime and its apologists, Jews are free to leave Iran if they want to. Yet many Iranian Jews have risked their lives and/or were killed when trying to flee Iran. For example, helping Jews to emigrate to Israel is punishable by death. Iranians including Jews are forbidden from any contact with Israel. The regime in Iran doesn’t allow whole Jewish families to go to Israel.

Correct I am not Jewish but I support and defend their right to defend themselves from attacks and terrorism. Just as I support and defend the people of Syria's right to defend against attack and terrorism.

How silly again, jewish invade Palestine and you defending them. They are killing innocent empty handed people and you are defending them, correct yourself you are more faithful than a jewish.

When did the Jewish invade Jewish land then ? remember International law stated that the land was Jewish in 1923.

Soon international Law maker will intervene and change and I am sure you will accept the new Law instead.

No International Law Maker but the people, and if they say no then the law will not stand. And the law stands today even after islamonazi scum tried to get it changed and failed. The only way is to negotiate a lasting peace and mutual borders with Israel

I have read your weak links...

There is NOTHING to support your claims of "forced expulsion and mass murder"...

Read them again? Look for something you are making up?

I don't think so.... Phoney by name phoney by nature!

Take your islamonazi rose tinted glasses of and look again

 

[Phoenall]

The land is Jewish or don't you think that International law applies in Israel's favour.

Let me ask you this Phoney...

Why is it that every country, excluding Israel, naturally, believes that the territory is illegally occupied by Israel?

Because they are not aware of the real facts and only get too hear the islamonazi version of accounts, that and the fact that many nations are run by left wing government that know they can never stamp out Judaism without stamping out the Jews first

 

[Phoenall]

P F Tinmore, et al,

Most people understand that, not until 1988, could the Palestinians be in a position to acquire territory.

P F Tinmore, et al,

Generally speaking, laws do not tell "what you can do" --- but rather --- "what you cannot do." I'm sure that Iwent over this before.

(COMMENT)

For several millennium --- the most common means was "discovery." However, no new land has been discovered in a century. Today --- there are five primary modes of acquisition of territorial sovereignty which are typically dubbed the ‘original’ or ‘traditional’ methods. Each mode of acquisition - is different:

NOTE: Recognizing the importance of the international regulation of territorial disputes, international law has established a range of mechanisms for peaceful settlement. Whether binding in law as such or not or involving third parties such as courts or international organizations or not, such mechanisms will be briefly reviewed in this lecture. ​

• Occupation: Occupation is the intentional acquisition by a state over a territory which at the time of claim not under the sovereignty of any state. There are two requirements:

(1) the territory subject of claim must not be under the sovereignty of any state (terra nullius); and
(2) the state must have effectively occupied the territory, that is, the state claiming the territory must have exercised immediate occupation (corpus occupandi) on the territory after it displayed its intention to occupy (animus occupandi).

Special Source Note: "g. With regard to acquisition of sovereignty by military occupation, in the case of the Ottoman Empire pre-1918 of the Red Sea islands, the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of proceedings, Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute, in the case of Eritrea versus Yemen, October 9, 1998, stated that “title had been secured by military occupation, which was lawful by reference to the international law of the day.” (See Page 7 )"

“maps merely constitute information which varies in accuracy from case to case; of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title, that is, a document endowed by international law with intrinsic legal force for the purpose of establishing territorial rights."
​

Attribution: INTERNATIONAL LEGAL RULES FOR DECIDING SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES by J. Ashley Roach​

• Accretion, is the attainment of sovereignty over new land due to slow movement of natural forces. A contemporary example is the movement of the Rio Grande River between the US and Mexico, in favor of the US.

• Cession, is the transfer of territory usually by treaty from one state to another. The transfer of territory is the transfer of sovereignty from the owner state to another state. And since cession is a bilateral transaction, the parties involved are states. Cession may also be in the form of exchange of territory or in the form gift or donation or devise.

• Conquest: is acquiring territory by the use of force. The practice before was after conquest, the conqueror annexed the conquered territory to his state. Thus, conquest first takes place followed by annexation. But with the establishment of the United Nations, conquest is no longer acceptable in the international community. However, it is actually still in use today. A classic example is the Crimean Territory. There was first the case of Russian Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Empire (1783); and then (most recently) the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014).

• Prescription: means continued occupation over a long period of time by one state of territory actually and originally belonging to another state. There are four requirements of prescription:

(1) the possession must be exercised in the form of actual exercise of sovereign authority;
(2) the possession must be peaceful and uninterrupted;
(3) the possession must be public; and
(4) the possession must be for a long period of time.
​

Most Respectfully,
R

Good post. Thank you for proving my point.

(COMMENT)

I believe that the Jewish State of Israel does not want to annex either the Gaza Strip or the West Bank, for much the same reason that Jordan gave it up. Israel does not want the burden of sustaining a State in which the people are belligerent and the State itself is not self-sustaining and parasitic (being a nation of people existing on donor handouts). I don't believe that the West Bank or Gaza Strip should be --- in any way --- concerned that these territories will be absorbed by Israel. The "Occupation," if we can truly call it that, is purely a defensive posture.

As for the 1948/1948 establishment of Israel, the right of self-determination was used to support the Cession of a portion of the territory to which Mandate of Palestine formerly applied. In most cases no formalities need to be complied with to affect cession. However, in the case of the Jewish State of Palestine, the "original intent" was to conform to the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" established by the UN. This was intentionally interrupted through the use of force by multiple Arab States to take control of the territory (conquest) for their own agenda.

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily). However, in the case of Israel, it is assembled by several different means. Officially, the 1948/49 War of Independence is not completely over. Yes, there is an "Armistice" (marking the end of open hostilities) between several warring parties, only Treaties between Israel and two Arab States (Egypt & Jordan) have been concluded. These two treaties establish the International Boundaries. In 1988, while Israel "Occupied" the territory formerly controlled by Egypt & Jordan (West Bank or Gaza Strip), the Arab Palestinians Declared Independence in the territory now identified as the "occupied Palestinian territories" (oPt), at the time defined as the "West Bank or Gaza Strip" or the "territory occupied since 1967." While Israel recognizes the international legitimacy of the UN Acknowledgement, the UN was unable to proved such security necessary to establish law and order or a defense deterrent against future Arab attacks on Israel. And the Arab Palestinians have not been able to actual "exercise of sovereign authority" over the oPt, such that further hostilities could be enforced and prevented.

Again, I don't think that Israel have any intention of annexing the oPt --- or extending their sovereign control over the oPt.

Most Respectfully,
R

Our friend "P_F Tinmore" is correct by implying that under International Law the act of Cession is usually marked by Treaty (customarily). However, in the case of Israel, it is assembled by several different means.


What other means are there besides treaty. Acquisition of territory cannot be just say so or some back door approach.

I believe that conquest would be more applicable. Of course conquest was illegal when Israel drove out the Palestinians and set up shop.

Under what law as the land was there to be taken by who got in first. Which nation owned the sovereignty of the land and so owned the land until Israel declared independence ?

 

[Billo_Really]

Because they are not aware of the real facts and only get too hear the islamonazi version of accounts, that and the fact that many nations are run by left wing government that know they can never stamp out Judaism without stamping out the Jews first

Oh, shut up!

This issue has nothing to do with Judaism.

You try to make it about Jews, because you can't defend Israeli atrocities. And soon, Israel won't be able to defend Israeli atrocities. It's no secret Israel is helping ISIS rebels in Syria against the Assad government. Well, as they say in boxing, Israel is about to move up in weight class. It has been reported, Russian troops are now fighting in Syria. And if there's an escalation, don't get all butt hurt Israel gets its head handed to them.